Accident on Pirates

[BigTxEars]

My wife has said it for years while going to Disney, that the announcement Cast Members make about keeping hands inside the vehicle, is not a suitable safe guard to prevent an accident. This guy could say that while loading into the vehicle, there were a number of distractions that prevented him from hearing the announcement, such as a kid crying, Brazilian tour group chanting, etc.

If it did go to trial, Disney would have to prove that they did all they can do prevent an accident from happening and the announcement of keeping hands inside the vehicle is not all they could have done. Putting Rails on the boats would be the most they could have done to prevent an injury.

On an off topic side note, speaking of Dog Bites. My wife prosecuted a man who had a dog and a sign that said "beware of dog". Two neighborhood kids, uninvited and basically trespassing, hopped a fence to run through peoples backyards and were bitten by this guys dog. The owner lost 50,000 to each kid for the bites. The guy had to prove he did all he could do to prevent an attack from his dog and the judge said Barb-wired fencing is the most he could have done. In Disney's case, the same thing applies, they have to prove they did all they can do to prevent an injury.

I guess it would depend on the commons sense of the judge involved IMO.

I guess we mightl see, I hope this guy does the right thing and mans up and admits this was 100% his fault and just moves on.

 

[Yankee Mouse]

I guess it would depend on the commons sense of the judge involved IMO.

Law and common sense don't always go hand in hand.

Honestly,I really don't think what disneyfamily4 is saying is that crazy and it was what I was trying to say earlier, but I don't know the law in Florida. It does seem though that in this case Disney could do more to prevent possible injury, or future lawsuits.

It might do for us all to remember that even lawyers do not determine judgements. Only judges and juries who are in the jurisdiction and actually hear the case do.

You mean judges who used to be lawyers?

 

[invader]

I am not a lawyer and I am pretty much just passing on what my wife says. She has been one for over 20-years in NY and she has always talked about that announcement of "keep hands inside vehicles". Saying it will never ever hold up in court.

She always said, the signs about keeping hands in vehicle and the announcement that are made, are not protection. That it pretty much is more of an acknowledgment on Disney's part, of potential danger.

I know a lot of the key board lawyers on here think they know it all, but my wife is certain, this guy will get a check (or already has) to avoid court, and none of us will ever know. The only thing that exempts Disney from a lawsuit is an act of god, such as what we saw on the monorail. If anyone would have gotten hurt on the mono rail , Disney is not liable. They had no way to prevent it. For the POTC case, rails, that are on several other vehicles throughout the theme parks, would have prevented the accident. Again I know the Disney Deity/Keyboard Lawyers will disagree.

While your wife may damn well be a very good lawyer, I think you/she are/is overlooking something here. Disney has a whole legal team that views each and everything that goes on in the parks. I'm sure they've more than covered Disney's so they don't come off as negligent or responsible in each case, such as this one.

 

[BigTxEars]

Sounds like he is owning up to it, great to hear

 

[BigTxEars]

While your wife may damn well be a very good lawyer, I think you/she are/is overlooking something here. Disney has a whole legal team that views each and everything that goes on in the parks. I'm sure they've more than covered Disney's so they don't come off as negligent or responsible in each case, such as this one.

I am not a lawyer. But if I were I would go with the "well Mr. Stubby, if the ride was faulty can you please explain how millions of people from all over the world and of all ages ride it yearly and depart with all of their digits"?

Then I would follow it up with this:



and promptly get kick rout of court.

 

[xdan0920]

How many people break the speed limit on their way to WDW? If only just for a bit? Despite there being signs everywhere saying 55 mph?

For their not following rules, do they deserve to be maimed in an accident and mocked about it?

No.

This guy though, he has become a sort of focal point for rule followers to point at and shout, "I follow the rules, you don't, now you'll pay the price."

It's not the mature response, but it's understandable. So many guests treat the parks and the rules of the park as something that doesn't apply to them. It's sort of satisfying to see there be repercussions for dumb, selfish, entitled actions.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

No.

This guy though, he has become a sort of focal point for rule followers to point at and shout, "I follow the rules, you don't, now you'll pay the price."

It's not the mature response, but it's understandable. So many guests treat the parks and the rules of the park as something that doesn't apply to them. It's sort of satisfying to see there be repercussions for dumb, selfish, entitled actions.

Eh, if it had been a flash photographer...

 

[omurice]

If this story made the NY Daily News, the headline might be something like
"UK Man gives Disney the Finger! (Literally)"

 

[natatomic]

On an off topic side note, speaking of Dog Bites. My wife prosecuted a man who had a dog and a sign that said "beware of dog". Two neighborhood kids, uninvited and basically trespassing, hopped a fence to run through peoples backyards and were bitten by this guys dog. The owner lost 50,000 to each kid for the bites. The guy had to prove he did all he could do to prevent an attack from his dog and the judge said Barb-wired fencing is the most he could have done. In Disney's case, the same thing applies, they have to prove they did all they can do to prevent an injury.

I say this sort of half joking as I'm sure your wife is a lovely person, but I'm pretty sure that I could never be friends with your wife if she's the type of lawyer who defends snotty trespassing teenagers who ALSO ignore a warning sign! Seriously, it's stories like that that make me hate the legal system. And lawyers.

 

[rob0519]

I say this sort of half joking as I'm sure your wife is a lovely person, but I'm pretty sure that I could never be friends with your wife if she's the type of lawyer who defends snotty trespassing teenagers who ALSO ignore a warning sign! Seriously, it's stories like that that make me hate the legal system. And lawyers.

The legal system has its faults, yes and some judgements make it easy to hate attorneys. That is until you or a loved one are injured in an accident or possibly negligent incident. You will then be hoping you have one of those personal injury attorneys, which you've been condemning, on your side.

 

[dadddio]

I say this sort of half joking as I'm sure your wife is a lovely person, but I'm pretty sure that I could never be friends with your wife if she's the type of lawyer who defends snotty trespassing teenagers who ALSO ignore a warning sign! Seriously, it's stories like that that make me hate the legal system. And lawyers.

I'm a bit confused as to what exactly the wife did in that case. He stated that she 'prosecuted' the dog owner which means that she works in the DA's office and they tried the guy criminally. Then he said that the guy had to pay the kids $50k each. This would mean that it was a civil trial and the guy's wife was suing the property owner on behalf of the trespassers.

1+1=17?

 

[Disneyfamily4]

I say this sort of half joking as I'm sure your wife is a lovely person, but I'm pretty sure that I could never be friends with your wife if she's the type of lawyer who defends snotty trespassing teenagers who ALSO ignore a warning sign! Seriously, it's stories like that that make me hate the legal system. And lawyers.

Honestly I agree with you. I was amazed that two kids, who entered property without permission, were awarded 50 grand. But if the "beware of dog sign" was not posted on the property, the home owner would have won.

Like I said before, the law states, if a person advertises a potential danger, he/she then needs to do everything that is humanly possible, to prevent this danger from occurring. A tall wooden fence is step one. A lock on the fence is step two and both were done by the home owner. Barbed wire on top of the fence, would have definitely prevented the kids from entering, therefore in the end, the Judge ruled that a dangerous dog was advertised, and the owner failed to do everything that is humanly possible to prevent this situation.

On the POTC, Cast Members tell you to keep hands inside the vehicle at all times. Why? because of the potential danger. As someone pointed out, there is a sign on the boat, which again, describes potential danger. Step 3 would be rails. Other attractions have rails to prevent you from putting your arm and elbow out of the vehicle. Even the boats in POR that take people to DTD have rails and I think plexy glass, to prevent it. POTC doesn't.

Some people here say the guy admitted to this all being his fault. I haven't seen that article yet.

However, the funny thing is, when this happened, my wife said if he makes a public statement about this, he was already paid off. In accident cases like this, you never hear from the person ever. But when you do hear from the person, it is because he was paid off, and the contract he signed prevents him from blaming Disney, making him take the money, but only if he accepts full responsibility. Sounds like that is exactly what has happened. During the next refurb of the ride, rails on the boats would further prove a settlement was reached.

 

[NowInc]

I'm a bit confused as to what exactly the wife did in that case. He stated that she 'prosecuted' the dog owner which means that she works in the DA's office and they tried the guy criminally. Then he said that the guy had to pay the kids $50k each. This would mean that it was a civil trial and the guy's wife was suing the property owner on behalf of the trespassers.

1+1=17?

Correct. If money was involved then it was a civil suit. It either settled in mediation, or went to trial in which the outside factor is a jury. Nothing is ever a sure thing in trial. I do more then a fair amount of work for use in trials and the one thing that is a constant is that there is no such thing as a slam dunk case. Jury deliberations are a very unique situation. It only takes one juror to sway everybody else.

To the point here, IF a trial has been brought up, which I am more than sure many lawyers have reached out to him , the options will be weighed. If they end up asking for too much, then it will go to court, if they keep it reasonable, its simply easier and cheaper for Disney to settle.

 

[note2001]

Seriously, I feel bad for the others in the boat with him who had to witness someone loosing his fingers. I can deal with small scratches, but the sight of significant quantities of (real) blood does me in. I think I'd have passed out and been the one to fall overboard. LOL.

 

[Phonedave]

Correct. If money was involved then it was a civil suit. It either settled in mediation, or went to trial in which the outside factor is a jury. Nothing is ever a sure thing in trial. I do more then a fair amount of work for use in trials and the one thing that is a constant is that there is no such thing as a slam dunk case. Jury deliberations are a very unique situation. It only takes one juror to sway everybody else.

To the point here, IF a trial has been brought up, which I am more than sure many lawyers have reached out to him , the options will be weighed. If they end up asking for too much, then it will go to court, if they keep it reasonable, its simply easier and cheaper for Disney to settle.

And if it went to mediation, the dog owner's homeowners insurance could have decided that paying $50k to each person was cheaper then bringing a civil suit to court.

I had a civil suit brought against me once, for a personal exposure of over $750,000. They ending up taking the less than $25k my insurance offered them. Without going into all of the details, it was basicly a "we think this money is less that what our court costs will be, so here, take it. Plus we don't have to contend with a possible oddball jury decision." payment.


-dave

 

[EOD K9]

And if it went to mediation, the dog owner's homeowners insurance could have decided that paying $50k to each person was cheaper then bringing a civil suit to court.
I had a civil suit brought against me once, for a personal exposure of over $750,000.


-dave

Personal exposure? And you're on a family site bringing that to light? Shame on you!!!
Sarcasm in case you missed it.

 

[shakes20]

What I don't get is how giving a simple warning that is easy to follow and reasonable to expect would increase liability. Where I live, there are deer crossing signs all over the place, and at least once a week I see the remains of a deer that had been hit by a car. So the DOT knows there is a danger, acknowledges the danger, they could put up taller fences and create tunnels for the deer, they don't, yet they are not held accountable. I know, probably apples and oranges, we are talking about the government.
I also think I know why there aren't railings. Think about how you get on and off of the ride, those would create a major trip hazard or require major mechanization of the boats.

 

[Disneyfamily4]

What I don't get is how giving a simple warning that is easy to follow and reasonable to expect would increase liability. Where I live, there are deer crossing signs all over the place, and at least once a week I see the remains of a deer that had been hit by a car. So the DOT knows there is a danger, acknowledges the danger, they could put up taller fences and create tunnels for the deer, they don't, yet they are not held accountable. I know, probably apples and oranges, we are talking about the government.
I also think I know why there aren't railings. Think about how you get on and off of the ride, those would create a major trip hazard or require major mechanization of the boats.

For the rails, I am guessing they would be the hinged adjustable ones. They would go down, then after everyone is on, the cast member lifts them up to lock into place.

I pretty much agree with everyone here by thinking this is a very stupid problem for Disney to have. My family does not need a warning to know not to put your hands outside any vehicle. Sadly there is no common sense law-suit Disney could file against the guy for bad publicity.

 

[JIMINYCR]

Seriously, I feel bad for the others in the boat with him who had to witness someone loosing his fingers. I can deal with small scratches, but the sight of significant quantities of (real) blood does me in. I think I'd have passed out and been the one to fall overboard. LOL.

When I had to start doing this, I had a hard time.
It must have taken a while from the point of injury to where they were able to get the guest off the ride and control the bleeding. I certainly would have been overboard with you. With all the blood loss over a large area, I wonder what process do they follow to clean the ride site so it's safe for reopening?

 

[Phonedave]

Personal exposure? And you're on a family site bringing that to light? Shame on you!!!
Sarcasm in case you missed it.

I got it

And I learned a valuable lesson. Umbrella insurance is not too expensive, and well worth the cost when it comes to not having to have to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in this sue happy environment. I won't go without it now.


-dave